This slide show relates to climate change, but it pretty much applies to almost everything that the right wants to promote from smoking to gun control.
For example, it was pretty much accepted that the Second Amendment applied only to Article I, Section 8, clause 16 Militias until fairly recently, but there is now "new scholarship" that challenges that interpretation which is funded by the NRA. Note who the speaker was at that conference! Of course, he should have recused himself from the case for bias--it might even be an ethics violation for him.
But, as this suggests, you need to do some thinking for yourself, which most people are adverse.
Besides, the myth is far more comforting.
But, if you have doubt, then you need to do your own research to try and find the truth. My suggestion is to go to primary sources--not Second Amendment "Scholars".
Here's a question: how come the Miller court never questioned Miller's service in the National Guard (militia)? Weird considering that's the only thing that gives anyone the right to own ANY firearm, particularly back then when they didn't have today's bastardized NRA interpretation of the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteAnd if was "pretty much accepted" in 1939 that the right only applied to militias, how the hell did this case make it all the way to the Supreme Court? The lower courts should have said, "was Mr. Miller in service with the National Guard? No? Then what was he doing in possession of a firearm? Everyone knows this". [bam] Next case!
DeleteLaci,
ReplyDeleteWe've read the primary sources--the founding documents, the case law, histories of the times, earlier documents and commentaries like Blackstone, etc.
And from these, the only conclusion that can be gleaned is that you are wrong and your interpretations are only possible after a profound twisting and torturing of the primary sources.
Militia in its original meaning meant a volunteer force (not paid by tax payer monies or supplied by any government)of an individual who wishes to, if asked, supply himself, his arms, his ammo and his training to defend (insert cause here)as a militia member.
ReplyDeleteThus without the right (or the right being infringed upon) of the individual to keep and bear arms there could never be a militia.
Infringed means taxed, charge a fee for, licensed, permitted or otherwise restricted in any way that prohibits or restricts any individual from obtaining and maintaining arms and armament. The exception being an individual who has lost civil rights protections from his felonious actions.
The second civil right belongs to the individual to protect himself and others from another felonious actions, tyrannical governments and such whether the threat is from an individual or group in an unlawful attack. That means protecting ourselves from an outside force or government or from within.
The second civil right is born with the individual, not granted to by the government, but protect from the government like all civil rights enumerated in the bill of rights.
The second civil right is not about hunting altho hunting was a part of living back then, still now to some extent.
The second civil right was not about recreation, altho competition shooting has been around since the invention of the gun.
The second civil right was about the free arming of the individual who wishes to do so for his own reasons who also could volunteer to be a part of or to form a militia for the cause of protecting a community, county or state of residence.
The Texas Rangers was a militia, first unorganized, then organized and recognized by the state of Texas as a self policing, unfunded organization who protected ranchers. The state of Texas then chartered the Texas Rangers and became a state supplied and funded organization and at that point was no longer a militia. The Texas Rangers jurisdiction is the entire state and have power over the State police, local police and more.
As I understand the National Guard formed much the same way and is no longer a militia but a Federal funded arm of the government.
The militia is NOT the military. The military is NOT the militia.
The military is a paid and supplied force by the government and funded by tax payer monies who are to protect the country as a whole from outside the U.S. borders. The military in active force inside the U.S. borders is a standing army which shall not be tolerated.
Any individual who has chosen to arm themselves is a potential militia member. If the mayor of a city or town, a county sheriff or the governor of the state called for a voluntary armed force to protect and defend said area, a militia could be formed. Unless agreed upon by the leaders of other areas or adjoining states, a militia only operates in their home state or county or town.
Unarmed people cannot form a militia.
Please save this in a file and post it every time Laci comes around.
DeleteNice summary!
DeleteI don't really know how to save this in a file Greg, this new computer software I haven't figured out yet. But if you like it, please save it and re-post it as you see fit.
DeleteThis goes for you as well Tennessean, and thanks.
Done. I'll post it with appropriate attribution every time Laci repeats his nonsense.
DeleteOne primary source is the Constitution. It takes real work to confuse the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But here we see that as far as Laci is concerned, disagreeing with him is an ethics violation.
ReplyDeleteProbably goes a long way toward explaining why he's retired.
By the way, your link goes nowhere, and the video sprawls out so much it's covered up by the sidebars.
ReplyDeleteKind of like your arguments.